Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

18-320 - Gregory v. The City of New York


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
18-320 - Gregory v. The City of New York
April 3, 2018
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM & ORDER: Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum & Order, Plaintiff's claim against the City of New York is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. However, Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. Plaintiff is informed that if he elects to file an amended complaint, he must name as proper defendants those individuals who had some personal involvement in the conduct he alleges in the amended complaint, and he must also provide relevant dates. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) ("a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, violated the Constitution."). If Plaintiff wishes to bring claims against a defendant and does not know the name of the individual, he may identify each of them as John or Jane Doe, and to the best of his ability describe each individual. The new complaint should be captioned as an "Amended Complaint," and use the same docket number as this Order. Any amended complaint completely replaces the Original Complaint. No summons shall issue at this time and all further proceedings shall be stayed for 30 days. If Plaintiff fails to respond to this order, or fails to do so in a timely manner, the action will be dismissed. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 4/3/2018. (Cuevas Ingram, Joanna)
June 21, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER: The Court directs that Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In light of Plaintiff's pro se status, however, he is granted a second and final opportunity to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days in order to name proper Defendants regarding his claims of denial of medical care, gross negligence, and excessive force. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) ("a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, violated the Constitution."). If Plaintiff wishes to bring claims against a defendant and does not know the name of the individual, he may identify each of them as John or Jane Doe, identify their place of employment, and to the best of his ability describe each individual and the role he or she played in the alleged deprivation of his rights. Plaintiff must clarify the date that the events occurred. Plaintiff is reminded that each Defendant must be named in the caption of the complaint. The amended complaint must be captioned Second Amended Complaint and bear the same docket number as this order. No summons shall issue at this time and all further proceedings shall be stayed for 30 days. If Plaintiff fails to amend his complaint within 30 days as directed by this order, judgment shall be entered. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 6/21/2018. (Rediker, Ezekiel)
September 18, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER: For the reasons listed in the attached memorandum and order, the Court directs that Plaintiff's claims presented in the second amended complaint are dismissed against the City of New York, the New York City Department of Correction, the State of New York, the New York State Department of Court Officers, and Defendant Leecock. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. No summons shall issue as to these Defendants. The Court directs that in accordance with Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72 (2d. Cir. 1997) (per curiam), the Court requests the Office of the New York State Attorney General to ascertain the full names of the court officers, who are alleged to have been involved in the March 9, 2015, incident at the Richmond County courthouse involving two or more court officers. Plaintiff describes one of the court officers as a "supervisor" and as a white male in his late 40s and weighing approximately 240 pounds. The next court officer is described as a bald, white male, approximately 35 years old and weighing approximately 170 pounds. The Office of the New York State Attorney General is to provide the full names of the John Doe officers and the addresses where these individuals can currently be served; the government need not undertake to defend or indemnify these individuals at this juncture. The Court requests that the Office of the New York State Attorney General produce the information specified above regarding the identities of the John Doe Defendants and the addresses where they can be served to the Court within forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order; once they have has been identified, Plaintiff's complaint shall be deemed amended to reflect the full names of these individuals as Defendants, summonses shall issue, and the Court shall direct service on these Defendants. Service of a copy of this Order shall be made by the Clerk of this Court by mail, together with a copy of the petition, to the Attorney General of the State of New York, and the District Attorney of Richmond County, and by mailing a copy of this order to Plaintiff. This action is referred to Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon for pretrial supervision. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 9/18/2018. (Rediker, Ezekiel)